If homosexuality (or gender variance) are considered "disorders" that implies that a) there is something wrong with these behaviors and b)that there is a cure.

There being something wrong doesn't imply there's a satisfactory cure. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that these sorts of things will someday have "cures" even though society no longer acknowledges an underlying problem, in that sufficiently motivated and funded individuals could change their orientation.

In regards to one particular disorder, GID, I can't imagine that it being declassified as a disorder could possibly be good for people who have it, because if it's not a disorder, then the surgeries and hormones used to treat it are purely cosmetic and elective. Good luck getting proscription drugs for a problem that doesn't officially exist, much less paying for it.

Thanks for posting on this and helping to get the word out.

I just want to respond to the part about reparative therapy and medicalization. While I agree with what you're saying regarding homosexuality and medicalization (there's nothing wrong with it, and saying it's a disease only increases suffering), it's more complicated with trans folks.

Many of them depend on the medicalization to access health care, surgery, and hormones, as well as counseling to get through the transitioning process, whatever result they try to receive.

I don't think that they're looking for it to be demedicalized. I think they want to improve the standards of care and make it easier to access hormones, etc., but to demedicalize would hurt a lot of trans-folk concretely.

Like in some provinces in Canada, for example, where transitioning is covered by the state health care plan.

Blanchard's response is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't really address the core complaint being made about his work: that while he doesn't advocate conversion therapy for gay people, he does advocate a similar approach for young trans people. This is also part of his 'long record,' as is the often highly patronizing and pathologizing tone of his advocacy for transition therapies for adults.

As the commenter above notes, depathologizing gender variance is often seen as problematic because without a pathological framework, it is hard to justify the availability of and coverage of transition therapies. But this is not necessarily so, and indeed there is a developing framework that justifies transition therapies while treating gender variance as a normal, health facet of diverse human development. After all, in the U.S. virtually all insurance currently excludes transition therapies but includes some things that are not strictly "medically necessary" for most people who seek them, such as contraception. As with contraceptive coverage, guaranteeing coverage of transition therapies is and will continue to be a political project.

"On the other hand, it is entirely possible that these sorts of things will someday have 'cures' even though society no longer acknowledges an underlying problem, in that sufficiently motivated and funded individuals could change their orientation."

Kinda like how hair dye is available in some places where people don't harass other people for having red hair?

"In regards to one particular disorder, GID, I can't imagine that it being declassified as a disorder could possibly be good for people who have it, because if it's not a disorder, then the surgeries and hormones used to treat it are purely cosmetic and elective. Good luck getting proscription drugs for a problem that doesn't officially exist, much less paying for it."

Just curious, what's GID? Meanwhile, does insurance cover it when a fertile woman gets IVF because her partner has a low sperm count and the two still want to conceive together? That might be a case of the woman getting coverage for a treatment without being labelled ill first.

Good point, Alice.
Also I wonder: What about those who are genuinely struggling in their thinking/understanding/grasp of their own personal gender identit(y/ies)? Does the queer community think that no one can have a problem -- or that they "should" not have one-- that those who do are self-hating or wrong?

In my first pass at thinking about this, it strikes me as yet another artificial (arbitrary?) restructuring of language to force something that is not so easily forced or negotiated -- and the forcing of which leaves out true thoughtful searching for the truth.

I wrote my ethics paper about GID using a modified version of that boy-girl transgender person who wanted to go to school as a girl and Neil Cavuto called the school's accomodations "crazy." The paper and presentation was mostly about intentional misdiagnosis of mental disorders, but it got me thinking more about GID.

I understand what Alice is saying, that because of the screwy managed care system for mental health counseling, it's impossible to get insurance coverage for therapy without an "legit" diagnosis (and even then it's still hard), which sucks for both counselor and client. However, GID is a very stigmatizing disorder, and diagnosing someone with it can have detrimental effects. The feelings that transpeople have about their gender identity are as strong as people who identify with their biological sex and gender, so is there a "disorder in gender identity" at all? Do you diagnose a trans person with GID if their reason for seeking therapy is because they're depressed? Does it make a difference if they're depressed over their gender dysphoria? These questions are very important for feminists who are or will become mental health professionals and want to get paid without harming their clients or committing insurance fraud.

I do have one issue with comparing the declassification of homosexuality in the DSM with the declassification of GID. Unlike with gay men and lesbians, transpeople are uncomfortable with the body they were born in. That sort of comfort comes from within, not from social stigma. It's different from being impaired in social and occupational functioning because you're afraid of what people will think of you. The discomfort and the feeling that there's incongruence between their biological sex and gender will certainly cause impairment in social and occupational outside of being afraid that others will judge them for being trans. Like, someone with OCD might be embarrassed by their thoughts and behavior and doesn't want anyone else to know about it, causing impairment in social functioning, but the constant ruminations of obsurd thoughts and rituals will do the same thing. The obsessions and compulsions come from within the person, just like the strong feelings of not having the proper sex organs come from within.

In my opinion, the entire Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders section has to be revamped. At the least, I think GID should be moved from Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders to Disorders Usually Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence, since that seems to be the case.

In regards to one particular disorder, GID, I can't imagine that it being declassified as a disorder could possibly be good for people who have it, because if it's not a disorder, then the surgeries and hormones used to treat it are purely cosmetic and elective.

The movement to remove GID from the list of mental disorders is not seeking to have it removed as a diagnosis entirely, but rather to have it recategorised as a physical, rather than mental, condition.

Mina: Kinda like how hair dye is available in some places where people don't harass other people for having red hair?

Exactly. Also, GID is "gender identity disorder."

Another consideration is that the diagnosis and treatment of GID is not completely straight forward. People don't simply come to the realization that they ought to be another sex, change sexes, and then everything is awesome forever. The success rate for sex-transition is not 100%, which means that there are many people with GID for which coming to terms with their present body is in fact the best option.

I have at times wondered whether identification with a particular sex is actually the norm. I'm presently female, and fine with the fact that I'm female, but if a magic beam struck me just this moment that made me male, I can't imagine having a problem with it to the extent that I would develop GID.

There is a very good reason for it to remain qualified as a disorder: money. (American Dream right?)

A friend of mine had gender reassignment surgery a few years ago, and I can't recall if insurance was covering it at that point, but it was a tax deduction. The idea is insurance will not cover "treatment" for something that isn't a problem. If it's a disorder, disease etc., with an approved treatment, insurance companies have a lot more trouble getting out of paying for this treatment.

While I don't like it being classified as a disorder, I can see the need. It's the same reason pregnancy is considered a disability.

It's a tricky decision. I guess there is no way everyone will be happy with the classification.

Thanks for the good comments everyone!

I appreciate that you all provided the other side of the gender identity disorder debate. Funding for surgery and transitions is really important, and those things (unfortunately) require a diagnosis. I think that's where it differs from sexual orientation, which doesn't seem to benefit in any way from a disordered diagnosis.

But maybe that's really connected to a larger critique of the health care system?

Thanks for the clarification everyone!

I think it is worth clarifying that the job of the task force for DSM-V is to assess the current diagnostic classification system (DSM-IV-TR) and recommend changes that will improve the usefulness of these diagnoses for assessing and treating individuals. Currently, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is included with other "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders." This section of the DSM also includes Male Erectile Disorder, Premature Ejaculation, and other disorders that are generally considered "physical" disorders (although for a DSM diagnosis, purely physiological/medical causes should be ruled out).

Given Blanchard's extensive work on trans issues, I think his appointment to this committee is justified - it reflects the APA's belief that those best suited to assess the usefulness of the current diagnostic criteria are those whose work has utilized them. As a researcher whose work speaks directly to the assessment and treatment of GID, I expect that Blanchard will have useful insight into the ways in which the current classification system is inadequate for helping guide research on the etiology, course, assessment and treatment of gender identity issues.

I believe that much of the outcry over this appointment stems, not from discomfort with the fact that GID is included as a diagnosis in the DSM, but in the assumptions that many people make when a set of symptoms is defined as a "disorder." One of the most important criteria for making a DSM diagnosis is that the individual must experience clinically significant distress or impairment. Without one of these criteria, even a person who meets all of the criteria for a specific disorder does not warrant a DSM diagnosis. I think everyone can agree that individuals with clinically significant distress regarding their gender identity, or those whose ability to function socially, academically or professionally is impaired by gender identity issues, should receive adequate assessment and services to alleviate distress and impairment. The goal of the DSM revision process is to ensure that the criteria used to identify these individuals are clinically useful for guiding research and treatment decisions.

I say again, we are not trapped into pathologizing gender variance in order to get to social acceptance, availability of treatment, insurance coverage, or tax deductions. There is, thank goodness, no such thing as "Fertility Identity Disorder."

Ensuring access to transition therapies does not require classifying it as "necessary to treat disease" rather than "cosmetic." Rather, the goal should be to justify it as necessary for people's personal autonomy and dignity - much like access to contraception. This is not going to happen tomorrow, but it a goal worth working toward.

Naturally, depathologizing transition does not require throwing out any screening function on the part of helping professionals. They play this role with regard to contraceptive and reproductive technologies as well - making sure that the treatment is safe for the patient and making sure their choice is well-informed -
and that role is more pronounced when therapies have longer-term effects.

The story on NPR where the boy's parents take all his favorite toys away is so sad. The worst part is that the mom "finally considered it a problem" when the kid got BEAT UP. As if her SON was the problem, and not the boys who hurt him!

Nothing in particular against gender-reassignment surgery, but I do wonder if it would be as necessary if our society wasn't so strictly gender conformist.

Why do we consider that someone must be "all boy" or "all girl"? (And if a boy shows a strong enough identification with girls, then he must either be pushed back into the "boy" box, or become completely a "girl"?)

Anyway, just some thoughts.

The story on NPR where the boy's parents take all his favorite toys away is so sad. The worst part is that the mom "finally considered it a problem" when the kid got BEAT UP. As if her SON was the problem, and not the boys who hurt him!

Nothing in particular against gender-reassignment surgery, but I do wonder if it would be as necessary if our society wasn't so strictly gender conformist.

Why do we consider that someone must be "all boy" or "all girl"? (And if a boy shows a strong enough identification with girls, then he must either be pushed back into the "boy" box, or become completely a "girl"?)

Anyway, just some thoughts.

I have little to add at the moment to this discussion. (Although I could add that I remain enough of a Foucauldian to shudder a bit at any discourse -- medical, legal, even queer -- that compels us to identify our "true" sexuality, our most "authentic" sexual identity, and to make that identity visible for examination, regulation, and categorization. That kind of freedom -- like most kinds -- has its own costs.)

But what I really want to note is how impressed I am by the thoughtful and intelligent conversation as a whole. Miriam's post, I think, set the stage in both tone and content. It was remarkably even-handed, informative, and detailed. Contacting Dr. Blanchard and publishing his reply showed a commitment to this topic and an openness to the discussion that followed.

Cheers to Miriam. Your post sets a high standard for Feministing writers and readers.

This post comes at an interesting time. My butch partner of 8 years is considering some transitional steps and we're looking into health insurance plans right now so that we will be able to afford it. We are currently uninsured, and are not willing to empty our savings account for this. Having an insurance plan to help pay for this is the only way for us to not lose our house as my butch goes through this. Additionally this is not like flipping a coin from Female to Male. This is a few steps further down the path.

First-- yes, what Barbara said. The parents in the story were trying to do what was best for their child. At Dr. Zucker's urging, they tried to force her to not be so girly, on the grounds that there was some sort of natural reason why she should get beat up by boys. WTF?!?

As others have noted, transition costs are not generally covered in the US. However, unlike homosexuality, transition typically requires medical intervention. The key here, IMO, is that it's not intervention to fix a mental illness-- rather, it's intervention to address a physiological and hormonal that causes great distress to otherwise healthy individuals.

Much of the blow back against Zucker stems from his lumping "GID" together with paraphilia, which has a way of reducing transsexuality to a fetish. It's demeaning, damaging to the goal of securing medical care (and social acceptance) for transsexual people, but it's also based on a complete failure to listen to, or otherwise take into account the experiences of trans people.

Lastly, returning to the issue of health insurance-- dykelawyer for the the win! Insurance companies typically cover viagra. Why? Not so much because it's medically necessary, but because society deems boners for guys as super important. Fair enough. The hard part is to move society along enough so that health care providers will accept birth control, gender transition and other issues as deserving of equal care.

Awesome post-- great comment thread!

It seems like a lot of folks are assuming that a diagnosis makes insurance pay for things like hormone therapy or surgery - in the States, that is very largely not the case! Most insurance companies have specific exclusions for transition. I have heard of some people getting their insurance to cover it, but I really think that's the exception - everybody I personally know has paid for everything out of pocket. (Good luck, JrzyFemme! And please make sure your insurance doesn't exclude what you need before you give them your hard-earned cash!)

I agree with what Miriam hinted at...this debate is not complete without a broader critique of our health care system, which is so pathology-driven. The focus is overwhelmingly on treating disease instead of treating people. How else could we spend so much more than other countries that actually have universal health care? If we focused more on supporting people's wellbeing and empowering them to live healthy lives, we wouldn't have to consider pathologizing identities in order to provide access to some pretty basic, necessary care. Like dykelawyer said...it won't happen tomorrow, but it is a goal worth working towards!

(Also, Barbara P, I hear where you're coming from in wishing for a society that weren't as rigid about gender as ours is. But I also really think that questioning the need for surgeries assumes that the people wanting them are totally driven by social/cultural pressures, rather than their own identities and desires...No, we don't have to be "all boy" or "all girl," but it's ok if some of us are, and it's ok if some us that are, want to change our bodies to align with those identities.)

It outrages me that Zucker has been appointed chair.

The piece NPR recently ran was incredibly moving, definitely listen to it if you get a chance.

Zucker, who was "treating" one of the boys took the following appraoch:

"to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder. He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast."

It was so incredibly sad listening to these parents taking all the joy out of their sons life. Getting rid of toys, pink crayons, dress-up clothes. It was heart breaking. There has to be a better therapeutical way, i thought.

Zucker is best known for his quote comparing "gender identity disorder" to race: "Suppose you were a clinician and a 4-year-old black kid came into your office and said he wanted to be white. Would you go with that? ... I don't think we would."

The two don't even begin to compare and to make clinical decisions based on such a weak parallel is not only dangerous, but unethical. Like i said, i am outraged that he is the chair of this committee.

He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast.

This one is really telling. Apparently, Zucker thinks there are two kinds of people that hang out with men (unless he thinks that kids and adults go by different rules):
1) Macho guys that play football and drink brewskis with the boys while watching the game and talking about getting some.
2) Hot babes that want a tough, rugged man to take them home at night.

Granted, that's not exactly what he's said, but IMO, that's certainly the undercurrent. It makes me wonder why anyone thinks he's qualified to work with any LGBT or otherwise non-gender normative people. It also makes me wonder why there's not more outrage about his appointment coming from LGB and feminist circles.

Nothing in particular against gender-reassignment surgery, but I do wonder if it would be as necessary if our society wasn't so strictly gender conformist.

Why do we consider that someone must be "all boy" or "all girl"? (And if a boy shows a strong enough identification with girls, then he must either be pushed back into the "boy" box, or become completely a "girl"?)

Hmmm. Speaking as a trans woman, there’s more to the desire to transistion than a dissatisfaction with gender roles.

Lets look at it this way. There are a lot of folks who are upset and dissatisfied with the roles and behaviors that society assigns to them because they were born with a particular set of genitals. Presumably, a lot of folks who identify as feminist are among those people. However, most people who share this dissatisfaction are pretty happy with their body’s physical sex. That’s not the case for many trans people.

Was I unhappy with society’s expectations when I lived in a male body? Yes. I think the restrictive expectations placed upon men and boys are pretty stupid.

Was I unhappy living in a male body? You bet. It made me pretty unhappy—so unhappy that chances are, I would have left this planet a little earlier than most.

Am I unhappy with society’s expectations now that I’m female bodied? Yes, again. I think the roles and expectations placed upon me—and any other woman for that matter—are a pretty awful. I was annoyed by society’s expectations of women long before I went through medical transition. Nevertheless, I transitioned.

In spite of my critical opinions regarding female gender roles, I’m pretty happy about living in a female body. I felt extremely uncomfortable living in a male body. The mere thought of it makes me shudder. That’s not an issue anymore and I’m deeply grateful. However, I still have to contend with some spectacularly stupid gender expectations from society. Sexism sucks. There's no way around that.

The point I’m trying to illustrate is this: discomfort in one’s birth sex does not necessarily indicate a particular form of gender expression. One references one’s physical being. The other references personality traits, behaviors, and a pattern of relating to others. Sometimes there’s a correlation between the two and sometimes there isn’t. Gender expression runs the gamut among trans people. Regardless of one’s desired physical sex, one can identify as masculine, feminine, androgynous, or some assortment of all three.

I’m not so sure that fewer people will alter their physical sex when society’s notions about sex and gender loosen up. I wouldn’t be surprised if more people chose to experience the transition between female and male. Human beings have a deep curiosity about many things. Plus, the intensity of gender conformity is behind a lot of prejudice toward transgender people. Many trans people choose not to transition because they are very aware of this conformity and the rather severe prejudices that accompany it.

What I find fascinating that hasn't been discussed thus far is the determination of a "disorder." As the APA says, "A psychological condition is considered a mental disorder only if it causes distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their transgender feelings and traits to be distressing or disabling, which implies that being transgender does not constitute a mental disorder per se." http://www.apa.org/topics/transgender.html

Since, I would assume, most of the "distress and disability" that might plague a trans person's identity comes from societal pressures, it would make more sense to diagnose our SOCIETY as transphobic, than each individual who feels "distressed" simply because they do not conform to the prescribed "norm."

First, a clarification of your post: the American PSYCHIATRIC Association ( http://www.psych.org/) publishes the DSM, the web site APA.org is the American PSCHOLOGICAL Association.
Both have a fairly different scientific and clinical approach on the world so it goes to figure they would have a different take on gender variance. Not that they don't influence each other, though.

More generally: This isn't just about whether GID will continue to be in the DSM -- a complex subject itself. It's about the mental health community continuing to give a LOT of clout to people whose theories and practices run contrary to actual real live trans people. Trans people still have very little say in the institutional processes that dictate their care. As is indicated by how two folks (Zucker and Blanchard) who are fairly well despised by the trans community prior to all this are actually promoted to be authorities on our lives!

Then as an extra slap in the face we see responses like Blanchard's here. While he may be correct that folks opposing his and Zucker's appointment are not using the correct lingo (the analogous "conversion therapy" being in the context of trans people as opposed to gay/lesbian people as is apparently the official APA approved definition). I think its telling that for all the letters i've seen come out of APA circles about why these appointments are not such a big deal, not one actually addresses the core concerns of the activists involved.

I'm sorry if this is all comes out a bit overly emotional: i'm coming from the view that trans folks in the US are in a health care crisis: not just because transition related procedures are often inaccessible, but just in general we face such frequent abuse and neglect at the hands of health professionals (Tyra Hunter and Robert Eads being classic examples, and i'd include Thomas Beatie in here as well). Stuff like this really doesn't help!

kaylagrrl, that same article says that some transgender individuals experience shame or confusion over their feelings. While shame may come from outside sources, confusion sometimes doesn't. If I were transgender, nobody would have to tell me that I should have a penis instead. That feeling would be internal. I think it's possible that not every transgender individual has Gender Identity Disorder, but those who are struggling with their feelings and don't know what to do need to be able to seek help. Until the healthcare system changes to where all diagnoses and classifications are covered (like Adjustment Disorders and V-Codes), no diagnosis is needed, or therapy is covered by universal healthcare, then there has to be a diagnosis. Mental health professionals are trying really hard to change the system, so hopefully it'll be more friendly for clients and counselors soon.

Thanks for the correction Joe. Acronyms are confusing! I also appreciate you sharing your perspective. I would agree that I do think trans folk are in a health care crisis, and they should be at the center of decisions regarding their well-being.

A little off-topic:

For the people that live in the U.S., are you seriously worried that insurance won't pay for procedures/medication after GID is declassified? I say this because I would be highly surprised insurance would pay for it now. They are under no obligation to pay for a procedure/treatment – whether or not you've been diagnosed with a disease or disorder. Insured people die from lack of treatment all too often in this country.

I'm certainly would like for any treatment and procedure needed to be paid for, but under our current privatized, for-profit system, that will always be up to the insurance provider to decide - not the individual and their doctor.

I guess my point is the insurance debate is beside the point right now. Until we completely overhaul our healthcare system, diagnosis or no, there will still be people denied care, even if they need it.

Given Blanchard's extensive work on trans issues, I think his appointment to this committee is justified - it reflects the APA's belief that those best suited to assess the usefulness of the current diagnostic criteria are those whose work has utilized them.

I would personally prefer a qualitative, rather than quantitative criterion for being on the committee. Yes, it's true that Blanchard has done "extensive work"; but the question is whether it's any good.

The answer is that it's not. Blanchard is best known for his development of a dichotomous categorisation for male-to-female transsexuals. Either they are sexual fetishists who get off on the idea of being female (autogynaephilia) or they are gay men who want to get with straight men ("homosexual transsexuals").

The problem is that even his own data had to be "interpreted" to death to reach that conclusion, his work has yet to be replicated (after about twenty years!), and his "theory" has never been accepted by the relevant community of researchers and clinicians.

There are many people who are much more qualified for the post than Blanchard. Having him on there would be like putting a creationist on a committee charged with developing a consensus paper on the state of evolution theory.

This first notion is that I am transphobic. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Ray Blanchard

A man without a penis has certain disadvantages in this world, and this is in reality what you're creating. -- Ray Blanchard

One of their evaluations required that I present myself dressed as woman for an interview with one of their staff, which was to be videotaped. Since I had not transitioned, and would not have passed in public, they agreed that I could change into my feminine attire on the premises. They left me alone to change in the studio where the interview was to be taped, but soon I noticed the cameras slewing to aim at me. The bastards were taping me dressing! I complained, afterward, but they just sloughed it off. It was now becoming clear that I was much more of a test subject to them, than a human being.
One of the final tests involved the plethysmograph. A contraption designed to measure penile response while the subject is shown various pictures. I was told not to speak, and to focus my attention on the pictures. I was surprised to find that some of them were from the session for which I had dressed as a woman. -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic

I know several people personally who went away from the Clarke weeping, yet found help elsewhere. There is no way of knowing for sure, but I believe the number may be quite high. They are success stories in the Clarke’s book, because they left the programme voluntarily and didn’t make the “mistake” of transitioning and SRS. At least the Clarke interprets it this way as they have lost touch with them. I’m told some former clients have committed suicide in despair of ever getting help, but I can’t verify that. -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic

He [a clinical psychiatrist] had other people in the room... the room was full of people. [Q: This is for your assessment?] Yeah. I wasn't told about this. This is illegal. He's supposed to tell me in advance. Nothing. I'm supposed to sign a release form. No release was signed. I tried to say that I wasn't comfortable with this. He said, "Fine. We'll reschedule. It'll take about six months to get another meeting, and then you'll get your assessment in about a year. I said, "Excuse me, this is blackmail!" And he said, "No it isn't; that's just the way things work around here." -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic

Those interviews and the procedures I had to endure were a shock. It was as if I was a sex offender being evaluated for serious sexual deviations. The line of questioning was all about my sexual experiences, masturbation, fantasies, etc., as related to crossdressing. The penile sensitivity testing was particularly demeaning as were the photographic sessions. -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic, performed before Blanchard arrived but the same methods continued under him

My next appointment with the Clarke Clinic was only a week away. So I showed up in “Ruth” mode dressed appropriately. Another quirk of theirs was the insistence that we MTFs dress unambiguously, that is, we show up for appointments there in a skirt or dress, not pants. -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic, obviously because women don't wear pants

When I first went to the Clarke, I was calling myself Kim Kershaw (Kershaw was an old family name that my grandfather had dropped). I was told quite bluntly that was not acceptable. My name must be unequivocally female. Androgynous names were not allowed. I believe this still holds true today. -- Client experience at Blanchard's clinic

His behaviour hindered my workshop, it put me on edge, and it made for an uncomfortable atmosphere for all those who were there to hear my presentation. I believe an invited guest deserves better treatment from CAMH staff. My workshop deserved ALL the time it was allotted and the men and women who attended the workshop deserved to hear the presentation that they specifically chose to attend. CAMH says it's opening itself up to community input and constructive feedback, but here's an example of what happens to a workshop presenter who tries to offer it. I was offended, angered, and frustrated by these events. This experience underscored my conviction that CAMH has only been paying lip-service to wanting to address the trans community's concerns about the GIC if this is how they treat an INVITED GUEST. The one "good" thing that came from all of this... almost everyone in the audience approached me personally later to say "thanks to today, we now have a better understanding of the kind of shit that trans people face trying to access service at the CAMH GIC." So, for that, I do have to thank James Cantor and Peter Coleridge. They provided a look at what really happens inside the GIC doors in a way that my workshop on its own could never have done justice. -- Letter that resulted in the professional censure of James Cantor, clinician under Blanchard at Blanchard's clinic, for harrassing a transsexual speaker. The speaker was there to talk about how to improve the historical animosity that exists between the clinic and the transsexual community of Toronto.

Blanchard isn't transphobic the way Strom Thurmond wasn't racist. The man had a black daughter, for crying out loud.

The second false notion is that I support reparative therapy (sometimes called conversion therapy), which is a term that denotes the attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual orientations. I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated therapeutic attempts to alter sexual orientation, either in adults or in minors.

Note that Blanchard is performing a bit of bait-and-switch here, as he knows full well that people are using the term "reparative therapy" colloquially to describe therapy aimed at trying to force transkids to be masculine (tellingly, almost all childhood GID therapy is done on feminine boys). And although Blanchard has apparently never taken the position that you can turn gay kids straight, Zucker talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue:

Dr. Zucker defends retention of the diagnosis. His priority is "helping these kids be happily male or female," but he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development. --http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/childhood.html

Also, although Blanchard may not try to use the childhood GID diagnosis to justify reparative therapy on children, he knows damn well that many other clinicians do so. The diagnosis doesn't even fit the DSM's own definition of a mental disorder. 4 of the 5 criteria in the childhood GID diagnosis are examples of social noncomformity, which the DSM itself says isn't supposed to be taken as evidence of mental disorder. Childhood GID is the only exception to this rule in the entire DSM, but they've never given any explanation for its special status as such.

Another problem with Blanchard (one of many) isn't that he wants to ban SRS, it's that he wants to control access to SRS. Blanchard's clinic has just regained monopoly control of SRS funding for Ontario. When they had it previously, they denied almost everyone who came to them. Even the people they ended up approving had to jump through hoops for years at a time, act out ridiculous Barbie-doll stereotypes of femininity, and were subjected to forced plethysmograph testing that is tantamount to sexual abuse. (By some amazing coincidence, the forced plethysmograph testing stopped around the same time they lost control of SRS funding. Be interesting to see if they bring it back now.)

And then of course his junk science "two types of transsexuals" nonsense that was previously argued ad infinitum here blah blah inaccurate definition of transsexual in his studies blah blah subjects had to conform to his expectations to get treatment blah blah didn't distinguish fetishistic from non-fetishistic sexuality in his measurement instrument blah blah blah.

So yeah, transphobic, abusive, poor scientist, we're screwed.

Boo--
Can you post some of those quotes (with citations) somewhere? I'm appalled by Blanchard, but some of those quotes speak to the issues better than I ever could.

Can you post some of those quotes (with citations) somewhere? I'm appalled by Blanchard, but some of those quotes speak to the issues better than I ever could.

Most of it is from stuff people sent to Andrea James. There's a lot to find poking around here:

http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/clarke-institute.html

And yes, Andrea James is the awful person who took captions from Bailey's book and put them under pictures of his kids. She actually stooped so low as to talk about non-transsexuals the way Bailey takes it for granted he should talk about transsexuals.

The one with other people being in the room without consent forms is from Ki Namaste's book Invisible Lives.

This is also pretty revealing:

http://www.trans-health.com/displayarticle.php?aid=86